Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6290767" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm in total agreement. But just because it's not generic doesn't mean it's one specific thing. D&amp;D has never been one thing, it's always been a fantasy mashup. OD&amp;D has threads of John Carter and Elric and Tolkein and Greek myth and whatnot all slammed together right from the get-go, and 40 years have only added to the mix. It doesn't ever draw into one cohesive whole. It doesn't need to. It shouldn't try to. Whenever it does that, it winds up ignoring the way the game is actually played. That comment seems odd to me. Why would you expect homebrewing to have to excise those things? Most homebrews probably either use those things, or simply ignore them. Every D&amp;D game you've ever played where Gruumsh's missing eye doesn't show up as a plot point is a homebrew where that bit of fiction was ignored. Homebrewing &quot;from scratch&quot; is just playing any D&amp;D game that doesn't explicitly use a pre-published setting. It's not some exhaustive accounting process.The thing is that none of these things are &quot;D&amp;D.&quot; They're just specific bits within the broader D&amp;D umbrella. A D&amp;D game that uses different gods or that doesn't use the deck of many things is still a D&amp;D game. A D&amp;D game that has no gods or magic at all is still a D&amp;D game. Because D&amp;D is not&nbsp; one particular setting. &nbsp; Given that comment, I don't think you understand my position. Which seems weird to me, because I certainly feel like I've spent a lot of word count on these boards on this (like I said upthread, it's kind of a thing for me). But lets be clear: saying that D&amp;D should not have a specific Defaultsylvania setting is not the same as saying that D&amp;D should be &quot;generic&quot; and that the bits of history &quot;don't belong.&quot; I'm rather saying that the bits of history aren't mutually exclsuive, and should ALL be used, rather than picking one &quot;favorite&quot; and acting like it is some super special snowflake that needs to be crammed into everything published for the next 5 years as the &quot;expected default.&quot;Yeah, it all sounds positive until he talks about how all these different kinds of dwarves aren't &quot;really&quot; different kinds of dwarves. Unless &quot;culture&quot; bears some mechanical weight, cramming all the different dwarves into one erases their valuable gameplay distinctions. If my dwarves in DL don't feel any different in play, in the dice-rolling and mechanics, from my dwarves in Greyhawk or FR....that's gonna kind of suck. That makes them &quot;generic,&quot; and erases history that &quot;doesn't belong.&quot; That's not really what I'm looking for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6290767, member: 2067"] I'm in total agreement. But just because it's not generic doesn't mean it's one specific thing. D&D has never been one thing, it's always been a fantasy mashup. OD&D has threads of John Carter and Elric and Tolkein and Greek myth and whatnot all slammed together right from the get-go, and 40 years have only added to the mix. It doesn't ever draw into one cohesive whole. It doesn't need to. It shouldn't try to. Whenever it does that, it winds up ignoring the way the game is actually played. That comment seems odd to me. Why would you expect homebrewing to have to excise those things? Most homebrews probably either use those things, or simply ignore them. Every D&D game you've ever played where Gruumsh's missing eye doesn't show up as a plot point is a homebrew where that bit of fiction was ignored. Homebrewing "from scratch" is just playing any D&D game that doesn't explicitly use a pre-published setting. It's not some exhaustive accounting process. The thing is that none of these things are "D&D." They're just specific bits within the broader D&D umbrella. A D&D game that uses different gods or that doesn't use the deck of many things is still a D&D game. A D&D game that has no gods or magic at all is still a D&D game. Because D&D is not one particular setting. Given that comment, I don't think you understand my position. Which seems weird to me, because I certainly feel like I've spent a lot of word count on these boards on this (like I said upthread, it's kind of a thing for me). But lets be clear: saying that D&D should not have a specific Defaultsylvania setting is not the same as saying that D&D should be "generic" and that the bits of history "don't belong." I'm rather saying that the bits of history aren't mutually exclsuive, and should ALL be used, rather than picking one "favorite" and acting like it is some super special snowflake that needs to be crammed into everything published for the next 5 years as the "expected default." Yeah, it all sounds positive until he talks about how all these different kinds of dwarves aren't "really" different kinds of dwarves. Unless "culture" bears some mechanical weight, cramming all the different dwarves into one erases their valuable gameplay distinctions. If my dwarves in DL don't feel any different in play, in the dice-rolling and mechanics, from my dwarves in Greyhawk or FR....that's gonna kind of suck. That makes them "generic," and erases history that "doesn't belong." That's not really what I'm looking for. [/QUOTE]

Verification